One of the most disturbing developments in world politics is that the number of interstate wars are increasing, marking an end to an eighty-year trend in the opposite direction. Historians refer to that eighty-year period as the “long peace” which is used to describe the decades of relative calm following World War II. Conflicts like America’s prolonged war in Vietnam and the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan are burned into our collective memory as reminders of a violent past, but the truth is that war in the past several decades has become less common. While intra-state wars (wars within countries) are still quite common, inter-state wars (wars between countries) have dramatically decreased since 1945, and the absence of large-scale wars means that such conflicts are fought less often and are less deadly. Some research even suggests that international relations during this time was more peaceful than ever before in history.
However, the startling rise of military conflicts witnessed in the past few years puts an end to the “long peace” as 2024 proved to be the deadliest year since 1964 in both frequency (61 interstate conflicts) and intensity (over 160,000 lives lost). Some of those flashpoints include Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, Israeli strikes into Lebanon, border clashes between Iran and Pakistan, etc. Moreover, this rise of interstate war appears to reflect a new normal as the causes of these conflicts (e.g. territorial disputes, weakening of international institutions, etc.) reflect structural issues that are becoming more common, harder to resolve, and likely to breed new conflicts.
These causes of war are likely to get more attention as more wars break out. However, wars are ultimately a product of a system in which they are fought, and underlying the recent rise of war is a changing international system that no longer resembles that of the years following 1945. On one level, an era of globalization has restructured the world in a way where interstate relations have become more economically interconnected. On another level, we are witnessing a revival of great power competition where countries like the U.S., Russia, and China pursue (often violently) their geopolitical interests abroad. Together, these changes have the effect of internationalizing both intrastate and interstate war which not only increases the likelihood of war, but also externalizes the consequences of those conflicts to more vulnerable countries not directly involved. In other words, the increasing frequency of war in a globalized world effects everyone, with poor countries likely to suffer the most.
A Very Different International System
We typically assume that the consequences of war are restricted to the territory in which they are fought over, but this is no longer the case as an era of globalization has restructured the international system around greater levels of economic interdependence. Today, economies rely increasingly more on the exchange of goods, expertise, and capital with others abroad. Just consider the fact that international trade volumes are roughly 4500% of what they were in 1950. As a result of this economic interdependence, the costs of war become increasingly externalized to others not directly involved. The reason for this is because wars often close trade routes, destroy production sites and energy grids, generate massive refugee flows, and cause environmental devastation, none of which are any longer contained within borders. Rather these effects ripple outward to others dependent on the countries experiencing them.
The irony is that following WWII there was a great deal of faith in the idea that a more economically interconnected world would foster peace. As World War II came to a close, and with the hardships of the Great Depression still a close memory, the world sought to establish a new political and economic order founded on economic and diplomatic interdependence. Inspired very much by the commercial theory of peace, many believed that a framework based on mutual economic dependence would prevent the breaking out of another world war. Countries met at the historic Bretton Woods Conference in 1944 to negotiate this new financial and monetary order which resulted in the formation of a series of institutions aimed at reducing barriers to trade and encouraging foreign direct investment. These developments laid the groundwork for the world’s globalized and economically interconnected system we have today.
While the ideas behind this international restructuring – that increased economic interdependence can prevent war – is highly researched in international relations, the evidence supporting the theory remains elusive. While some research has shown the trade does have a pacifying effect, other research shows that war often breaks out between countries even while they are engaged in trade with one another. Some research even shows that economic interdependence may actually increase the likelihood of conflict. This is often the case if the dependence between countries is asymmetrical and the relative gains of one are greater than the other. Additionally, competition over critical points of the global values chain also provokes conflict between major powers. In other words, the idea that economic interdependence creates peace lacks real empirical support, and this has led some to call the theory an ‘illusion.’
Research investigating whether increased economic interdependence results in prosperity for everyone in also inconclusive. Proponents of globalization often point to the fact that the global poverty ratio has dropped from 35% to 10% in the past couple of decades lifting one billion people out of extreme poverty. However, the standards for measuring extreme poverty are incredibly low (the baseline is $2.15 a day), which often misrepresents how severe and common global poverty really is. Nor have the gains in poverty reduction been realized evenly – the majority of those 1 billion people are in China. Meanwhile, countries in Sub-Saharan Africa still suffer from high rates of extreme poverty accounting for more than two-thirds of the world’s extremely poor. In many ways, globalization has deepened these problems by creating new power dynamics where poorer countries depend more on rich countries via unequal trade relations, foreign investment, and debt forgiveness. These kinds of relations leave poor countries vulnerable to external shocks and various forms of exploitation.
The Internationalization of War and its Effects on Poor Countries
What we do know about war in a globalizing world is that it has become increasingly internationalized. This occurs when foreign powers involve themselves in conflicts abroad (intrastate/civil wars or more localized interstate conflicts) transforming them into larger geopolitical contests. This is driven largely by major powers pursuing their strategic interests abroad, and it is a major factor behind the increase of interstate war. An example is Syria’s civil war which broke out during the Arab Spring in 2011. The conflict quickly involved other regional players like Iran and Turkey before it devolved into a multilayered proxy between multiple rivalries including the U.S. vs. Russia as well as Iran vs. Saudi Arabia.
Not only are wars internationalized but so are their consequences. We often think that the victims of a war are restricted to the territory in which it is fought, but the effects of war ripple out to others via economic disruptions, mass displacement, environment devastation, etc. Again, the fallout from Syria’s civil war is a good example: Jordan was an aid-dependent country who relied on trade routes that eventually shutdown due to the spread of violence in Syria. Simultaneously, Jordan (with the help of Lebanon) hosted more Syrian refugees than others in the region, more than what its fragile economy could sustain. This placed an incredible amount of strain on its natural resources especially water and agriculture which has crippled the country and plunged it into debt.
In other words, wars are different today due to growing levels of interconnectedness where the costs of conflict become increasingly externalized to others not directly involved. As the number of wars rise, others will feel the deadly consequences with the most vulnerable countries likely to suffer the most. The world is currently watching this happen during our most deadly conflicts.
One example is Russia’s ongoing war with Ukraine. Before Russia’s 2022 invasion, Ukraine served as a global ‘breadbasket’ which exported over 50 tons of grain annually. Most of the recipients were countries in Africa who were highly dependent upon wheat imports from Ukraine. Countries like Egypt, Sudan, and Djibouti imported over 70% of their wheat from Ukraine and some from Russia. The grand majority of this (around 90%) was exported through Black Sea ports which all came to a standstill due to the destruction of Ukraine’s infrastructure and a blockade during the war. On top of this, much of the fertilizer that African countries imported from Russia spiked in prices to 70% which threatened local crop production and worsened food security. Both of these shocks exacerbated a deadly hunger crisis in Africa which has grown from 273 million in 2022 to 306 million in 2024. Some of the countries hit the worst were Somalia, Kenya, and Ethiopia who suffered a triple threat of a food crisis during a drought and the aftermath of Covid-19.
Another example is the most recent U.S.-Israeli attacks on Iran. The asymmetry of the war has encouraged a ‘horizontal escalation’ where weaker combatants (in this case Iran) expand combat operations geographically to include other economic, informational, or energy-related targets. Without the ability to match American or Israeli military power, Iran’s defense includes strikes on data-centers, water desalination plants, and other critical infrastructure. The closure of the Strait of Hormuz is having the most impact on the war. With 25% of the world’s sea-born oil traveling through it, its closure results in fuel shortages and skyrocketing prices, as well as shocks in fertilizer supplies. The result is a price hike in food, transportation, and electricity in areas dependent on imported fuel – countries in the Middle East/South Asia as well as Sub-Saharan Africa. Even minor price hikes could have devastating effects on many in these areas already dealing with economic precarity and humanitarian crisis. In other words, the longer that wars rage on in places like Ukraine and Iran, the worse it gets for those in the Global South.
Our complex and interconnected world requires that we think of wars different than we used to. On one level, wars are increasingly internationalized with major powers involving themselves in conflicts abroad in pursuit of narrow self-interests. Simultaneously, the consequences of war are no longer contained within the border in which they are fought over; they are externalized to others not directly involved and who are geographically far removed from the fighting. The rise of wars, then, has serious implications for everyone in the system, but it will likely affect vulnerable countries the most.
